As for Rationalism, it has several meanings in the Western culture. This includes a particular philosophical meaning that appears in mention that is in contrast to Empiricism. This also includes the general meaning, as alluded to by John Cottingham in his book, The Rationalists when he said, “the 'rationalist', led by Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, were seen as attempting to construct their philosophical systems purely a priori.” This general meaning is what we are concerned about in this subject. This is because the common denominator between all the Western thinkers is the agreement to make mind as the legislator (hakim), regardless of its tools for analysis and judgement i.e. the mind is the reference to judge upon things and matters and not religion. Clarence Crane Brinton in his book, The Shaping of the Modem Mind states “Rationalism tends then to banish God and the supernatural from the universe. It has left only the natural, which the rationalist holds to be ultimately understandable, almost always by what most of us know as the methods of scientific investigation.” The repository europaeischewerte.info summarizes, in its publication, Definition of the most basic European Values that “In the Age of Enlightenment, Descartes and other philosophers and scientists based their thinking on reason and rationality... Reason stands above faith... Reason becomes the ultimate source of decision... The use of reason overrules religious and absolutistic bans on free thought and acts... “Good” is defined as “reasonable”... Evaluation occurs on the basis of a rational consideration of the situation.”.

Thus the West is rationalist in the sense that it abandons religion and comes to rely on reason, and reason alone, as a legislator. The dominance of reason appears in the West within what the Westerners acknowledge as principles, values and norms. These constitute the foundations of Western thought as a whole, as an ideology, civilization and culture. For them, values are in the sense of mere comprehended perceptions about things and actions, in terms of describing them as good (khair) or bad (sharr), pleasant (hasan) or ugly (qabeeh), right or wrong and moral or immoral. Consequently, things and actions are described as desirable or undesirable. For the West, the established and adopted values are considered on the one side as criteria of what is good (khair) or pleasant (hasan) to the individuals and groups. On the other side, they are considered as comprehensive criteria that guide and direct the individual and societal behavior.

As for the principles, some of them differentiate the principles from the values, whilst others do not differentiate amongst them. The differentiation made by some is not in the sense of meaning, but in the sense of continuity and particularity. So, some of the values are subject to change and relativity. However, as for the principles, they are fixed values that do not change. They are considered as humanly universal, including freedom, equality and secularism. As for the norms, they are - according to the West - the collection of rulings of conduct that are partial and specific, apart from the laws that usually emerge from values. They are related to the morals and traditions prevalent amongst the society, that determine whether the behavior is acceptable or rejected. These Western values, principles and norms emerged from the Western viewpoint about life or the so-called ideology. They are based on the separation of religion from life and the arbitration by the mind alone. This makes benefit as a basis to define the meaning of good and bad, as well as pleasant and ugly. This is expressed from the Western philosophy related to things and actions in terms of norms. It includes abstinence and performance, in terms of judgment that include reward and punishment, and in terms of the intent and values to be taken into account during action.

They relied on the consequence and result of an action to establish the action as being good or pleasant. This is called, according to them, Consequentialism. Consequentialist theories consider pleasure, the absence of pain, the satisfaction of one's preferences and broader notions of the “general good.” In his book, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Jeremy Bentham stated, “By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness.” Thus Utilitarianism defines the objective of man to pursue the achieving happiness. It is claimed that happiness is realized by all that benefits, whilst all that benefits is pleasure. This view is prevalent amongst the West, forming the practical Western perception of life. Nevertheless, they express it anew, with the concept of welfare, as they say. The action is evaluated for moral acceptance or rejection, in consideration of its being pleasant or bad, according to what is achieved of the welfare of man as an individual or a group. Values and norms are set only to achieve that notion.

Thus the only result is benefit decided by the human mind. There is no interference of religion or God. Thus rationalists affirm the ability of the mind to comprehend what is good and bad on its own. They assert the redundancy of religion. They cite the so-called Euthyphro dilemma, which is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, “Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” If one asserts the first premise, the Rationalists would say that the meaning of this is that action has in fact no value at all. Instead it is a legal consideration subject to the will of God. Thus if God had not commanded you to be just, you would have not been just, whilst justice is a reality for all human beings, without which life will not be put in order. If one asserts the second premise, they would say that if the action and its criterion are intrinsically good, then it is independent of God. The human mind can comprehend it without the need for God. In this way, the West established its rational system of values, excluding religion by using its Rationalism.

The Euthyphro dilemma upon which the Western rationalistic view, whether consequentialism or idealism, is built with respect to the subject of values and morals as a whole, considering them as a rational argument that justifies the exclusion of religion from life. This dilemma is nothing but a fallacy. This is because, regardless of their misperception of God and the corruption of their belief, it is established upon the false basis of recognition that actions are intrinsically good and bad, or pleasant and ugly, such that the mind can comprehend them, determining whether they are desirable or undesirable.

As for what is pertaining to good and bad, it is the characterization of actions in terms of its influence, according to the perspective of man, in terms of abstinence and performance, accordingly. Thus man likes things that fall under the sphere which either he dominates or the sphere that dominates him. Also he hates things within both spheres. So he attempts to interpret this love and hatred, as good and bad. He inclines to call what he loves, as good, and what he hates, as bad. Similarly, he calls some actions to be good, whilst others to be bad on the basis of what benefits him or what harms him.

In reality, actions emanating from man, within his sphere of dominance, cannot be described as good or bad in themselves. This is because they are actions alone, that are not characterized as good or bad in themselves. Instead, the characterization of being good or bad is based on external considerations, outside of the nature of actions. So, killing a human soul cannot be called good or bad. Instead it is only called killing. The characterization of being good or bad is external to that action. Thus, killing the one who wages war is good, whilst killing the citizen, or covenanted person or the one who is under protection (musta’min), is bad. The first killer will be rewarded, whilst the second killer will be punished, although both are undertaking the same action, of killing, without differentiation. What decides the good and bad are the factors that drive man to do that action, as well as the objective for which he carries that action. Thus, the factors that drive man to do the action and the objective for which he carries out that action, are the two things that determine the good and bad in an action. This is irrespective of whether man likes or hates that action and whether the action benefits him or harms him.

As for the actions that occur from a person or against him in the sphere that dominates him, man describes them to be good or bad based on his love or hatred towards them and based on his benefit or harm from them. However, this characterization does not mean that they are characterized by their reality. Man may see something as good, whilst it is in fact bad. Man may see something as bad, whilst it is in fact good. Allah (swt) said,

“But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.” [TMQ Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 216],

This is in relation to good and bad. As for the subject of pleasant/pretty (hasan) and ugly (qabeeh), actions are characterized by the judgment of man, by the reward and punishment of them. Actions of man are materialistic alone, with respect to their intrinsic nature, for all of their circumstances and considerations. The nature of being materialistic does not characterize itself as being either pleasant or ugly. Instead, the actions are described by their external circumstances and considerations external to the actions. This other matter is what explains the nature of action as being either hasan or qabeeh. This cannot be the mind because the mind is subject to disparity, difference and contradiction. The mind’s estimations of hasan and qabeeh are influenced by the environment in which a person lives. Minds are subject to disparity and difference over the passage of time. If the mind is left to determine hasan and qabeeh, then the thing that is qabeeh to one group of people will be hasan to another group. The same thing may be hasan at one time, whilst qabeeh at other times. The description of an action to be hasan or qabeeh must be applicable to all human beings, at all times. Accordingly, the characterization of actions being either hasan or qabeeh, by their nature, must come from a power that is beyond mind, which is Allah (swt).

Man gives himself the authority to judge actions to be either hasan or qabeeh by making analogies upon things. Since man finds that he is able to judge the bitter thing as ugly (qabeeh), the sweet thing as pleasant (hasan), the hideous form as ugly (qabeeh) and the beautiful form as pleasant (hasan), he thinks that he can judge truth as hasan, false as qabeeh, fulfilling the promise as hasan and treachery as qabeeh. So he gave himself the authority of judging actions as hasan or qabeeh. Based on his judgment, he determined penalty for the ugly action and reward for the pleasant action. He did so even though actions cannot be compared with things. This is because things can be sensed for their bitterness, sweetness, hideousness and beauty and so judgment can be passed upon them. In contrast, nothing can be found within actions that can be sensed by man, so that he can judge upon them, as to whether they are qabeeh or hasan. Thus, actions themselves cannot be judged as qabeeh or hasan absolutely.

The analogies made by man for good and bad, and for hasan and qabeeh, are varying and contradicting analogies. This is because they emanate from a limited mind, based upon sensations that are contradictory and not definite. It is not correct to leave the measuring of good and bad, or hasan and qabeeh, to man. This is because pleasant and ugly will be different from one time to another, from one group to another. This contradicts the reality of ideology being universal, through its characterization of actions for the whole of humankind, for all ages. Therefore, the characterization must be from a power that is beyond the mind, to explain to man what is good and bad and what is hasan and qabeeh, thereby determining for him what brings him benefit and what prevents harm. This power is the Creator of Man who is Allah (swt). Allah (swt) said,

“Does He who created not know, while He is the Subtle, the Acquainted?” [TMQ Surah Al-Mulk 67:14],

It must not be said here that the difference and disparity do not necessarily have to be in a negative sense, as they may be in a positive sense indicating evolution, development and progress. Accordingly, the evolution of Western laws is because of the evolution of societies and people. This must not be said because the treatments, in origin, are the organized rulings to satisfy a human, with respect to his organic needs and instincts, whilst considering him as a human. The reality of the system is that it does not treat the problems of humans, by considering them on an individual basis, or considering the place and time in which they live. Instead, the system would address the problems of Man by considering him as a human, whether male or female, Arabs or non-Arab, white or black, as well as whether he is an ancient Man, contemporary Man or future Man. The system would treat him as a human, without differing over time and place. There is no difference between a current Man and ancient Man. The issue of the contemporary Man is the issue of ancient Man, as both would feel hunger, thirst, fear and lust. This is because the organic needs and instincts are the same for every human. They do not differ from one individual to another, nor do they vary from one time to another. What is seen as a change in human living is in terms of practical realities and not in terms of the nature of humans themselves. The change occurs only in the forms of lifestyle. So the ancient man lived in caves and rode on horses, whilst the contemporary man lives in skyscrapers and flies in airplanes. If we scrutinize closely, we will find that the motive for ancient Man to live in caves and ride on horses, is the same as the motive for contemporary man to live in buildings and fly over airplanes. Accordingly, the system that is good for all times and places, is the system that provides treatments for the problems applicable to all the human beings regardless of their color, sex, race, place and time.

As for the values, Western thought erred in its research in four aspects:.

Firstly, regarding the values discussed by Western thinkers such as freedom, dignity, justice, equality, mercy, integrity, tolerance, liability and others. These are mere concepts whose meanings are not understood, unless they are connected with sensations, i.e. with the accepted sources and implemented treatments. Accordingly, we see that people do not differ over their adoption as mere concepts. Instead, they differ over the accepted sources and their practical implementations. Accordingly, it is fraudulent to say, for instance, that equality is a universal value and human requirement, knowing what it is means for a Westerner, is other than what it means for a Muslim. It is meant in Capitalism in a manner other than what is meant in Islam.

Secondly, the values discussed by the Westerners, seeking to emphasize them in their societies, are not achievable. This is because they contradict the Western viewpoint or ideology that depicts life from the utilitarian angle of benefits. Thus, if the values are not concordant to the Western viewpoint about life, then they are mere ideas that do not transform into purpose and practice. This reality is known by a group of the Western thinkers themselves. It prompted them to revive the so-called theory of deontological ethics (duty-based ethics). This means that they perceive the possibility of Western commitment to values, without considering their consequences and benefits. So they perceive that Westerners will not lie because lying is ugly (qabeeh) in itself and to be truthful because truth, by its nature, is good (hasan). This is a view of idealistic fantasy that is not achievable in any group of individuals in the West, as there is no motive for the implementation. Just because a Man knows that truthfulness is good, it does not automatically follow that he will adhere to it. There must be a binding motive, accompanied by praise or condemnation. So for a man whose creed separates this world from what is before and what is after, makes his individuality the center of the universe, depicts for him a single life which is the worldly life, he would devour the pleasures of this world as much as possible. This person will not pay any attention to truthfulness, except to the extent that it benefits him. It cannot be said here that the laws with their punitive authority could be a deterrent and stimulus for abiding. This cannot be said because the laws do not control human behavior at any time and place. Instead, their control over the behavior is deficient and has limited effect. The individual needs another stimulus, when neglecting the laws.

Thirdly, characterizing values is not a rational issue for Man to evaluate. This is because Man could simply focus on some concepts and values to validate them, whilst neglecting others, based on the viewpoint about life. For instance, the concept of honor has no meaning within the West, whilst it is amongst the basic concepts of Muslims. Spiritual value is not present in the Western system of values although millions of people are religious. Yet, the West ignores it because the West is secular and does not care about religious aspects. Also, it is up to a man to compare between values in order to choose the best of them, even if the values do not have comparison or equality. However, he would not be satisfied with that. He would still compare and equate between the values. However, the comparison and equation are not based on the virtue of the value itself, but based on how the value affects him. Accordingly, humankind builds comparison and equation between values, with respect to what the value bring of benefit or harm to him. Accordingly, he makes himself the criterion, or makes the effect of these values upon him, as the criterion. This is, in fact, the comparison between the effects of these values on himself, as opposed to between the values themselves. Since the constitutions of human beings differ with respect to the effects of values, they differ in their comparison between the values. Individuals who are dominated by materialistic inclinations, driven by lusts, would neglect values other than materialistic ones. They would prefer materialistic values and go out to achieve them, as is the reality perceived in the West.

Fourthly: The Western value system is invalid from its basis. This is because all the Western thinkers, irrespective of their different schools of thoughts and tendencies, when looking at the regulation of behavior, did not differentiate between the concepts that guide the behavior and the aim (qasd) of those concepts. Their research was all about the values related to the regulators of behavior and not their aim. Thus, the values which they discuss, which number in their hundreds such as integrity, love, focus, empathy, discipline, humility, understanding, tolerance, freedom, democracy, courage, equality, sincerity, honesty and others, are the values that include what falls within the concepts of regulation related to individuals, as well as relationships between the individuals, in other words, the regulatory concepts related to groups in a society. The Western values include what falls within the individual moral traits, which do not have any relation to the values of actions. This is because man as a human performs actions to satiate his instincts and organic needs, according to a specific concept that determines for him the permissibility of performing the action, or abstaining from the action. However, he does not perform actions with the regulatory concepts in mind alone. In fact, he also takes into account the realization of the aim of the action which he performs. Otherwise, the action would be in vain. The aim (qasd) of the action i.e. for what purpose he performs the action, is called the value of action.

The Western civilization is based on the basis of separating religion from life, denying the impact of religion on life, characterizing life as benefit and making utilitarianism the criterion for actions. Consequently, it does not possess moral or spiritual or human values, except by way of formality. In fact, the Western civilization possesses only utilitarian, materialistic values alone. This utilitarian materialistic view is what brings misery to human beings. The French philosopher, Emile Brehier, in his book, Contemporary Themes in Philosophy (French: Les themes actuels de la philosophie), laments as how material science has led to an industrial civilization that indulged deeply in materialism and eradicated the humanity of man, making him lose his intrinsic nature, turning him into an object or a machine. As for the regulatory concepts of behavior that are moral concepts, which the West also calls values, the Western thinkers began to discuss them as they see their necessity and the society’s need for them. However, they are only amendments to the capitalist ideology after its failure and catastrophic impact on humanity became obvious. Nevertheless, those values other than materialistic are not intended in themselves for their validity. Instead, they are only for the benefit, to prevent misery. Will Durant wrote in The Story of Civilization Volume 9, The Age of Voltaire, that, “Voltaire sees much. He argues that the development of intelligence in man indicates an intelligence in or behind the universe. Finally, he returns to his famous proposition that ‘if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent him (French: Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait I'inventer)’; that without belief in a Supreme Being, in his intelligence and his justice, life with its mysteries and miseries would be unbearable. He joins d'Holbach in scorning superstition, but he defends religion as the simple adoration of a deity.” So, morality itself is necessary for the Western thought to achieve the interest or benefi